Personality and Social Psychology Review最新文献

{"title":"Decoding the Dynamics of Cultural Change: A Cultural Evolution Approach to the Psychology of Acculturation.","authors":"Jonas R Kunst, Alex Mesoudi","doi":"10.1177/10888683241258406","DOIUrl":"10.1177/10888683241258406","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although acculturation psychology is extensively studied in the social sciences, research progress has slowed due to overused methodologies and theories and emerging challenges to core conceptual tenets. Here, we seek to stimulate scientific inquiry into acculturation by integrating underutilized cultural evolutionary perspectives. We propose that cultural evolutionary mechanisms, such as (anti)conformity, prestige bias, payoff bias, and vertical transmission are instrumental in understanding when, why, and how minority- and majority-group members acculturate. The direction and potency of these mechanisms are proposed to be modulated by a combination of contextual and individual factors, resulting in acculturation strategies that at the population level form \"cultural evolutionary equilibria.\" These equilibria in turn have consequences for the long-term, population-level dynamics of cultural evolution. We outline how our integration of perspectives can allow researchers to model the dynamics of large-scale cultural change, increasing our understanding of the complex challenges faced by today's diverse societies.Public AbstractAcculturation describes the cultural and psychological changes resulting from intercultural contact. Here, we use concepts from \"cultural evolution\" to better understand the processes of acculturation. Cultural evolution researchers view cultural change as an evolutionary process, allowing them to borrow tools and methods from biology. Cultural evolutionary mechanisms such as conformity (copying the numerical majority), anti-conformity (copying the numerical minority), prestige bias (copying famous individuals), payoff bias (copying successful people), and vertical cultural transmission (copying your parents) can cause people to adopt elements from other cultures and/or conserve their cultural heritage. We explore how these transmission mechanisms might create distinct acculturation strategies, shaping cultural change and diversity over the long-term. This theoretical integration can pave the way for a more sophisticated understanding of the pervasive cultural shifts occurring in many ethnically diverse societies, notably by identifying conditions that empower minority-group members, often marginalized, to significantly influence the majority group and society.</p>","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"111-144"},"PeriodicalIF":7.7,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11960022/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141761776","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Case for Heterogeneity in Metacognitive Appraisals of Biased Beliefs.","authors":"Corey Cusimano","doi":"10.1177/10888683241251520","DOIUrl":"10.1177/10888683241251520","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Academic AbstractProminent theories of belief and metacognition make different predictions about how people evaluate their biased beliefs. These predictions reflect different assumptions about (a) people's conscious belief regulation goals and (b) the mechanisms and constraints underlying belief change. I argue that people exhibit heterogeneity in how they evaluate their biased beliefs. Sometimes people are blind to their biases, sometimes people acknowledge and condone them, and sometimes people resent them. The observation that people adopt a variety of \"metacognitive positions\" toward their beliefs provides insight into people's belief regulation goals as well as insight into way that belief formation is free and constrained. The way that people relate to their beliefs illuminates why they hold those beliefs. Identifying how someone thinks about their belief is useful for changing their mind.Public AbstractThe same belief can be alternatively thought of as rational, careful, unfortunate, or an act of faith. These beliefs about one's beliefs are called \"metacognitive positions.\" I review evidence that people hold at least four different metacognitive positions. For each position, I discuss what kinds of cognitive processes generated belief and what role people's values and preferences played in belief formation. We can learn a lot about someone's belief based on how they relate to that belief. Learning how someone relates to their belief is useful for identifying the best ways to try to change their mind.</p>","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"188-212"},"PeriodicalIF":7.7,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141285084","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"On (Im)Patience: A New Approach to an Old Virtue.","authors":"Kate Sweeny","doi":"10.1177/10888683241263874","DOIUrl":"10.1177/10888683241263874","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Academic AbstractPatience has been of great interest to religious scholars, philosophers, and psychological scientists. Their efforts have produced numerous insights but no cohesive theoretical approach to understanding the broad set of experiences people label as patience. I propose a novel view of patience, one that departs from but ties together existing approaches. Grounded in theories of emotion and emotion regulation, I propose impatience as a discrete emotion triggered by an objectionable delay of some sort, and patience (as a state or process rather than a virtue) as a form of emotion regulation that targets the subjective experience and outward expression of impatience. I propose a number of predictors and consequences of patience and impatience and provide initial evidence for many of the theory's tenets. This theoretical approach, the <i>process model of patience</i>, reveals coherence across varied fields and methodologies and generates novel, testable, and timely questions for future patience scholars.Public Abstract\"Patience is a virtue\" is a familiar exhortation, and patience has been of great interest to religious scholars, philosophers, and psychological scientists. Their efforts have produced numerous insights but no cohesive theoretical approach to understanding the broad set of experiences people label as patience. This paper proposes an entirely novel view of patience, one that departs from but ties together existing approaches. I propose that impatience is an emotion, triggered by a frustrating delay of some sort, and patience captures the various ways people try to deal with their experience of impatience. I also propose that various aspects of the situation and the person combine to determine the intensity of impatience and the effectiveness of patience. Finally, I discuss the implications of a theoretical model, the <i>process model of patience</i>, for both scientific inquiry and issues of social justice, which are often fueled by appropriate experiences of impatience.</p>","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"145-158"},"PeriodicalIF":7.7,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141789533","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"How and Why People Synchronize: An Integrated Perspective.","authors":"Elizabeth B daSilva, Adrienne Wood","doi":"10.1177/10888683241252036","DOIUrl":"10.1177/10888683241252036","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Academic AbstractInterpersonal synchrony, the alignment of behavior and/or physiology during interactions, is a pervasive phenomenon observed in diverse social contexts. Here we synthesize across contexts and behaviors to classify the different forms and functions of synchrony. We provide a concise framework for classifying the manifold forms of synchrony along six dimensions: periodicity, discreteness, spatial similarity, directionality, leader-follower dynamics, and observability. We also distill the various proposed functions of interpersonal synchrony into four interconnected functions: reducing complexity and improving understanding, accomplishing joint tasks, strengthening social connection, and influencing partners' behavior. These functions derive from first principles, emerge from each other, and are accomplished by some forms of synchrony more than others. Effective synchrony flexibly adapts to social goals and more synchrony is not always better. Our synthesis offers a shared framework and language for the field, allowing for better cross-context and cross-behavior comparisons, generating new hypotheses, and highlighting future research directions.</p>","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"159-187"},"PeriodicalIF":7.7,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141071920","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Framing Inequality as Advantage versus Disadvantage: A Systematic Review of Effects and a Two-Step Model to Explain Them.","authors":"Annette Malapally,Nicole Methner,Maike Braun,Sophia Wittenborn,Susanne Bruckmüller","doi":"10.1177/10888683251333458","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683251333458","url":null,"abstract":"Academic AbstractAlthough disadvantage and advantage jointly make up inequality, inequality is often one-sidedly framed as disadvantage. Concurrently, efforts to raise awareness for advantages are growing. Many studies have examined whether and how it matters if inequality is framed as advantage or disadvantage. However, empirical and conceptual integration of this work is lacking. For empirical integration, we systematically reviewed 71 experimental studies in 36 documents (n = 20,063). These investigated many different variables, but often only once, or with inconsistent findings. Framing manipulations varied in ways that could bias effects. Summarizing consistent effects, we conclude that framing can influence how people perceive and react to inequality, but this is contingent on moderators. For conceptual integration, we developed a two-step model, which defines (dis)advantage frames and aims to explain why (Step 1) and how (Step 2) they influence which variables, to help this exciting research field move forward in a more systematic way.Public AbstractInequality is one of the biggest challenges of our time. Both disadvantage and advantage are mechanisms that create and maintain inequality. However, there is often a one-sided focus on disadvantage, though awareness for advantage is growing slowly. This makes it important to ask whether and to what extent it matters if inequality is understood and talked about in terms of disadvantages or advantages. We analyzed and summarized previous studies that investigated these questions and developed an integrating conceptual model. Taken together, the way we talk about inequality can influence how people perceive and react to it, for example, how (il)legitimate they find it and what they want to do about it. Neither talking about inequality as advantage nor as disadvantage is per se more conducive to challenging or maintaining inequality. A balanced understanding of inequality seems necessary to fully understand the issue and to develop effective interventions.","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":"45 1","pages":"10888683251333458"},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2025-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143893168","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Second Thoughts About Culture and Cause: Why and How Do the Chinese and Americans Differ in Causal Attributions?","authors":"Xiaoyu Ge","doi":"10.1177/10888683251333453","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683251333453","url":null,"abstract":"Academic AbstractCurrent theories on dispositional-situational attributions suggest that East Asians' attributions are more external compared to Westerners. However, empirical studies yield mixed findings. I reflect on historical, philosophical, and sociological resources in China and the United States to address this inconsistency. This paper (a) proposes a new attributional dimension borrowed from Chinese philosophy-human- versus heaven-determined (-); (b) postulates that the Chinese are more likely to make internal human-determined attributions than Americans, whereas Americans are more inclined to make internal and external heaven-determined attributions than the Chinese; (c) reviews the existing literature to examine the extent to which this theory is evidenced and determine aspects remaining untested; and (d) discusses the generalizability to other cultures and directions for further research. Notably, \"heaven-determined\" is interpreted metaphorically (not religiously). Beyond dispositional-situational theory, this paper spotlights another meaningful pathway for constructing cross-cultural theory: The Chinese emphasize human determinism more than Americans.Public AbstractWhy do I succeed or fail? Why do people help or harm others? Members of different cultures may provide different answers to such questions-known in psychology as \"causal attributions.\" A popular belief in psychology is that East Asians are more likely than Westerners to consider external factors-in other words, environmental/outside factors-as causes of behaviors and outcomes. In this paper, I challenge this prevailing theory and propose an alternative, drawing on cultural resources and social realities of China and the United States. When explaining why something happens, the Chinese may focus more on average than Americans do on internal causes determined by humans (e.g., effort, motivation, attitude, skill, and strategy), whereas Americans may focus more on average than the Chinese do on causes that are not determined by humans (e.g., aptitude, genes, gender, race/ethnicity, physiological characteristics, luck, and supernatural force). More research is needed to test this postulation.","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":"1 1","pages":"10888683251333453"},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2025-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143893169","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Beyond Trolleyology: The CNI Model of Moral-Dilemma Responses.","authors":"Bertram Gawronski, Nyx L Ng","doi":"10.1177/10888683241234114","DOIUrl":"10.1177/10888683241234114","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Public abstract: </strong>How do people make judgments about actions that violate moral norms yet maximize the greater good (e.g., sacrificing the well-being of a small number of people for the well-being of a larger number of people)? Research on this question has been criticized for relying on highly artificial scenarios and for conflating multiple distinct factors underlying responses in moral dilemmas. The current article reviews research that used a computational modeling approach to disentangle the roles of multiple distinct factors in responses to plausible moral dilemmas based on real-world events. By disentangling sensitivity to consequences, sensitivity to moral norms, and general preference for inaction versus action in responses to realistic dilemmas, the reviewed work provides a more nuanced understanding of how people make judgments about the right course of action in moral dilemmas.</p>","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"32-80"},"PeriodicalIF":7.7,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11734360/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140111896","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"When People Do Allyship: A Typology of Allyship Action.","authors":"Lucy De Souza, Toni Schmader","doi":"10.1177/10888683241232732","DOIUrl":"10.1177/10888683241232732","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Academic abstract: </strong>Despite increased popular and academic interest, there is conceptual ambiguity about what allyship is and the forms it takes. Viewing allyship as a practice, we introduce the <i>typology of allyship action</i> which organizes the diversity of ways that advantaged individuals seek to support those who are disadvantaged. We characterize <i>allyship actions</i> as reactive (addressing bias when it occurs) and proactive (fostering positive outcomes such as feelings of inclusion, respect, and capacity), both of which can vary in level of analysis (i.e., targeting oneself, one or a few other individuals, or institutions). We use this framework to profile six productive yet largely independent bodies of social psychological literature on social action and directly compare relative benefits and constraints of different actions. We suggest several future directions for empirical research, using the typology of allyship to understand when, where, and how different forms of allyship might succeed.</p><p><strong>Public abstract: </strong>Despite increased popular and academic interest in the word, people differ in what they believe allyship is and the forms it takes. Viewing allyship as a practice, we introduce a new way (the <i>typology of allyship action</i>) to describe how advantaged individuals seek to support those who are disadvantaged. We characterize <i>allyship actions</i> as reactive (addressing bias when it occurs) and proactive (increasing positive outcomes such as feelings of inclusion, respect, and capacity), both of which can vary in level (i.e., targeting oneself, one or a few other individuals, or institutions). We use this framework to profile six large yet mostly separate areas of social psychological research on social action and directly compare the relative benefits and limitations of different actions. We suggest several future directions for how the typology of allyship action can help us understand when, where, and how different forms of allyship might succeed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":" ","pages":"3-31"},"PeriodicalIF":7.7,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11734359/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140066073","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"When Social Hierarchy, Power, and Collective Autonomy Motivate Social Movement and Counter-Movement Mobilization Among Disadvantaged and Advantaged Groups","authors":"Adrian Rivera-Rodriguez, Evelyn Mercado, Linda R. Tropp, Nilanjana Dasgupta","doi":"10.1177/10888683241305662","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683241305662","url":null,"abstract":"What happens when disadvantaged group members try to gain power in an attempt to protect their collective autonomy? The present integrative review outlines dynamic social processes and conditions under which efforts to restrict a group’s collective autonomy motivate social movement mobilization among disadvantaged groups to challenge social hierarchies that limit their power. This, in turn, threatens advantaged groups’ perceptions of their access to power and, by extension, their sense of collective autonomy, motivating them to reaffirm the existing social hierarchy by mobilizing counter-movements. We propose a theoretical model, called the Movement Mobilization Model of Collective Autonomy, to articulate these dynamic processes by integrating sociological, psychological, and organizational science literatures. The model specifies the conditions under which social movements and counter-movements are activated, psychological processes that drive action, how they play off each other, and offer directions for future research.Public AbstractWhat happens when disadvantaged groups feel that their freedom to define and practice their collective identity (i.e., collective autonomy) is restricted? The present theoretical review outlines the conditions under which social inequality activates the feelings of collective autonomy restriction among disadvantaged group members and motivates the mobilization of social movements seeking social equality. As these social movements gain traction, advantaged group members may feel that their privileged position and collective autonomy are threatened. These feelings of threat and collective autonomy restriction among advantaged groups in turn motivate them to mobilize counter-movements that seek to protect social hierarchy and their privileged position within it. The process outlined in this case is relevant to individuals from both marginalized and privileged backgrounds, as it illustrates the different ways in which real-world power structures shape the way they experience and navigate social movements and counter-movements as they unfold in real time.","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":"204 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142940164","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Beyond Good or Bad: The Four Evaluative Quadrants of Relationships","authors":"Francesca Righetti, Mirna Đurić, Iris Schneider","doi":"10.1177/10888683241302247","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10888683241302247","url":null,"abstract":"Academic AbstractTraditionally, theoretical and empirical accounts have considered relationship evaluations along one single dimension ranging from positive to negative. However, in this theoretical work, we stress the importance of using a bi-dimensional conceptualization of relationship evaluations in which positive and negative dimensions can vary independently. In doing so, we describe the four evaluative quadrants experienced in relationships and outline their unique interpersonal processes and outcomes, both from the perspective of the person experiencing them (i.e., actor effects) and from the perspective of the recipient of such evaluations (i.e., partner effects) and considering both explicit (i.e., deliberative) and implicit (i.e., automatic) processes. We also provide a framework that predicts how relationship properties are likely to influence relationships evaluations, and we introduce the Trajectories of Relationship Evaluation Model (TREM) that describes changes in evaluations over time and the factors that influence such changes.Public AbstractThe way we evaluate other people has important implications for how we relate to others and for our psychological and physical health. However, previous research has mostly focused on positive or negative evaluations in relationships. But there are two other types of evaluations that people commonly experience in relationships: ambivalence and indifference. In this work, we argue that it is important to study all four different evaluative types in relationships (i.e., mostly positive, mostly negative, ambivalence, and indifference) because they each uniquely predict certain relationship dynamics and processes. We discuss the consequences of these different types of evaluations for the person who holds the evaluation and for the person who is the target of such evaluation, and we discuss how these evaluations affect both deliberative and automatic processes. Finally, we propose a model (TREM) of how relationship evaluations evolve over time and of the factors that influence the changes in evaluations.","PeriodicalId":48386,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Review","volume":"65 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.8,"publicationDate":"2024-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142901606","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}